Litchfield County officials testify against teacher retirement shift

Teachers’ retirement cost would increase for towns

Published 6:50 pm, Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Photo: AP

Image 1of/1

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 1

Jessica Hill) - Associated Press
Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy delivers his budget address to members of the house and senate inside the Hall of the House at the state Capitol in Hartford, Conn., Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2017. less

Jessica Hill) - Associated Press
Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy delivers his budget address to members of the house and senate inside the Hall of the House at the state Capitol in Hartford, Conn., Wednesday, ... more

Photo: AP

Litchfield County officials testify against teacher retirement shift

1 / 1

Back to Gallery

TORRINGTON >> If Gov. Dannel Malloy’s proposed change to teacher retirement funding is approved in his budget, towns and cities would have to pay one-third of the cost. The funding supports the Teachers’ Retirement System — the state’s pension fund for educators.

Chief elected officials from across the region voiced their opposition to HB 7050, in testimony submitted for a public hearing on March 9.

Malloy suggested changing how this portion of the cost of teacher retirement is funded as part of his proposed budget for the fiscal year 2018-2019 biennium.

Torrington Mayor Elinor Carbone was distressed by the idea, saying it would impact the city’s tax rate and further burden taxpayers.

“As a Mayor, of a distressed municipality, I am challenged to balance the needs of the community with the ability of our taxpayers to pay for those needs. Over the past several years, we have had to make very difficult decisions that will have a long-term impact on capital projects and maintenance of infrastructure. Despite those efforts, a reduction in our grand list and increases in expenses has created an onerous mill rate that impedes our ability to attract businesses and commercial investment,” wrote Carbone as part of her testimony. “The proposal presented in HB 7060 will result in a $3,250,448.00 liability that our taxpayers simply cannot afford.”

Carbone also noted that the move would set a precedent to have towns and cities assume the entirety of the cost in the future, and objected to being required to fund a pension that was not negotiated by city representatives as part of her testimony.

Litchfield First Selectman Leo Paul wrote as part of his testimony that enacting this change “will impose an untenable burden on local governments, forcing steep increases in property taxes,” and also voiced his displeasure at the idea of having the cost imposed without local oversight.

“Requiring municipalities to bear the burden of funding the Teachers’ Retirement System is patently unfair. The Teachers’ Retirement System is a state-run, state-managed pension fund,” wrote Paul. “Municipalities have had absolutely no role in managing the teachers’ pension fund but, under this proposal, will be on the hook for covering 1/3 of the costs of the pension fund.”

Other local officials to testify against the bill included Barkhamsted First Selectman Don Stein, Goshen First Selectman Bob Valentine, and Cornwall First Selectman Gordon Ridgway.

Ben Barnes, secretary of the Connecticut Office of Policy and Management, submitted testimony in support of the proposal for the March 9 hearing.

“This proposal does not seek to limit teacher’s benefits or ask them to contribute more. Nor does it demolish this system or shift the entire cost to towns. Instead, as we continue making cuts in state services and as we ask state employees to find savings, we need towns to begin sharing the cost of their employees’ pensions. After all, teachers are municipal employees,” wrote Barnes as part of his submitted testimony. “Employee pension costs are based on local decisions on how much towns want to pay their local educators, and on how many teachers and administrators they employ. This proposal preserves this local control, but makes towns responsible for managing the costs as well.”

Other aspects of the proposal, as noted in Barnes’ testimony, include the elimination of the municipal spending cap, allowing municipalities to levy tax against real property owned by hospitals, and creating a “municipal accountability system,” under which would prompt “a tiered system of accountability under which municipalities would be subject to increasing levels of review and accountability based on their fiscal condition and the amount of state aid they receive.”